i think he was saying redundant in regards to the 24-105 F4l, not the 24-70 F2.8, and i would agree with him. with all the old (most of them still very good) lenses in the lineup i didn't think this lens was needed. esp before these others.

btw- my esp with the 35mm is that it focuses very well. i use servo mode nearly 100% of the time.

- i also had a sigma 24-70mm f2.8 and a couple versions of their 70-200mm. compared to canon's offerrings they where crap. much less expensive, but they still sucked.

As for the rumored 135 f/1.8 lens...it sounds intriguing. But I'm not sure I would sell my Canon 135 f/2, and replace it with the Sigma, even if the Sigma is a better lens overall. That's how attached I am to the Canon.

But I certainly do like Sigma lenses...

Apparently no one is listening to my requests for a really fast 95mm lens...an f/0.9, or faster. Now that would be something nobody else makes, especially for modern DSLR's. Yet it would cut into the 85mm fast prime-lens market...

Have any of you ever thought about designing lenses? Just curious...not implying it's simple or a necessarily realistic endeavor. I googled this, and it found a lot of sites...

Did Sigma resurrect steve jobs or something? They're like a whole new company now, good for them. Although I was gutted when I found out the 18-35 1.8 was for crop, would have been awesome for ff.

The son took over the family business

Is it true? If so that is really interesting, he must have been waiting for the moment having all those plans on how to change the company's strategy. When they suddenly start making so much better optics, would they have needed to hire better engineers also? Investment in new tooling also probably?

Canon is totally detached from the market, delivering late and under-performing on critical core lenses. The management that approved the redundant 24-70 IS F4 should be fired.

M

the f4 is not redundant.

it´s half the price of the f2.8 and many user don´t need a wide aperture.

the f4 would make a great landscape lens for me, if only the performance would be more consistent.

Several tests have put the 24-70mm at worse or equal to the 24-105 averaging overlapping focal lengths. The lens was a bad joke in price and image quality. I have tested both its nowhere near the 24-70mm f/2.8 ii, not even on the same planet. It's not even better than the old 24-70mm ii, it's just mediocre. In fact several people that bought it thought it was better than their 24-105mm then did backto back tests with the 24-105mm and found them to be equal then returned the lens.

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

Right because comparing a 7000$ dollar White-tele to a Sub-1000$ lens is a fair comparison.

All these incessant arguments about "IQ", when most people here will never approach the limits of the lenses they have!

Before anybody is allowed to post a lens IQ, colour, rendering, etc comment they should be forced to go see the conditions they are tested in. Bench tests are so far removed from real world use now most of this stuff is irrelevant. If you are using AF then that will have a far greater affect on the sharpness of your images than pretty much anything, assuming you are using two or three times the focal length as a shutter speed, you are on a very heavy tripod, working at one optimal aperture etc etc.

If you are not printing above 20" regularly, if you are using AF, if you are not using a tripod, if you are shooting in anything less than good contrasty light, if you are not shooting wide open, or stopped down, forget bench test resolution figures, they mean nothing.

Oh, and if you want a real dose of reality, ask yourself how this lady does most of this work with a 5D MkII and a 50 f1.8! http://tamarlevine.com/

P.S. After the debacle of Sigma's incompatibility issues, and more importantly, their refusal to stand behind their products and re-chip every single affected lens, I for one, will never buy a Sigma lens regardless of price, features or perceived value. I had a good friend who laughed at me when I got my 16-35 and 24-70, he said his six Sigma lenses cost less, I still use mine and they are worth pretty much what I paid for them ten years ago, his stopped working on his digital bodies and were scrap.

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

nice competitor to the sony 135 f1.8, which to date, it is my favorite 135mm lens over both the canon/Nikon variants. hopefully sigma will hit another home run after their 35 1.4 which just about writes the book on 35mm lens design.

Other than the OS (Canon IS), I don't see the sigma being a challenger of any sort.Who knows, though?

The Canon design is an ancient design with blurry corners and a blurry mid-frame. It's not a top of the line lens. It also has severe issues with purple fringing that's very poorly controlled, and as a long lens , lacking image stabilization means if you're just shooting an event or you're wasting 1-2 stops of light just to counteract camera shake without making your subject any sharper.

f/1.8 also makes a difference is subject isolation, and also reduces noise too.

Everyone was saying that you couldn't improve on the 35mm f/1.4 before and look what happened. The problem is that people assume a "good" lens can't be replaced by something that is earth shatteringly better.

Just out of curiosity - have you actually used the 135L? I use it continually for event, wedding, and portrait work, and it is exceptional. In fact, I have never heard anyone bash the 135L who has used it. It produces some of the finest color, bokeh, and sharpness of any lens, period. Your comments make it sound like garbage. The 135L is the tool I turn to for portraiture every time. It is fabulous!